Digital vs Conventional Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

• Published in: Journal of prosthodontics 2020-10, Vol.29 (8), p.660-678
• Main Authors: Papaspyridakos, Panos, Vazouras, Konstantinos, Chen, Yo‐wei, Kotina, Elli, Natto, Zuhair, Kang, Kiho, Chochlidakis, Konstantinos
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Accuracy; Accuracy of implant impressions; Clinical trials; completely edentulous; Computer-Aided Design; conventional impressions; Dental Implants; Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique; digital implant scans; digital impressions; Edentulous; Humans; Meta-analysis; Models, Dental; Mouth, Edentulous; partially edentulous; Prosthetics; Statistical analysis
• ISSN: 1059-941X; 1532-849X
• DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13211

Purpose To systematically review in vitro and clinical studies comparing quantitatively the 3D accuracy (global implant deviations) of digital vs conventional implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients. Materials and Methods Electronic and manual searches were conducted to identify in vitro and clinical studies, reporting on the 3D accuracy between digital and conventional implant impressions. Secondary outcomes were the effect of implant angulation, type of conventional impression technique, and type of intraoral scanner on the accuracy of implant impressions. Results The inclusion criteria were met by 9 in vitro studies and 1 clinical study reporting on completely edentulous impressions, while 6 in vitro and 2 clinical studies reported on partially edentulous impressions. Quantitative meta‐analysis was performed for 5 completely edentulous and 6 partially edentulous studies. The studies exhibited high values for heterogeneity. A random effects model was conducted to estimate the effect size. Based on 5 in vitro studies on completely edentulous impressions, the mean 3D implant deviation between conventional and digital impressions was 8.20 µm (95% CI: −53.56, 37.15) and the digital impressions had nominally less deviation (p = 0.72). Based on 1 clinical and 5 in vitro studies on partially edentulous impressions, the mean 3D implant deviation between conventional and digital impressions was 52.31 µm (95% CI: 6.30, 98.33) and the conventional impressions had nominally less deviation (p = 0.03). Five in vitro and 2 clinical studies were not included in the quantitative analysis due to heterogeneity in the methodology. Implant angulation affected the accuracy in favor of the partially edentulous conventional impressions whereas the effect of different scanners was not statistically significant on the completely edentulous impressions (p = 0.82). Conclusions Digital scans appear to have comparable 3D accuracy with conventional implant impressions based mainly on in vitro studies. However, clinical trials are recommended to investigate the clinical accuracy of digital scans and digitally fabricated interim or prototype prostheses, before digital implant scans can be recommended for routine clinical use.